The book provides an historical analysis of the impact of criminology on the rationale of punishment and the sentencing systems in Europe and the United States between the 1870s and the 1930s. The rise of the principles of individualization of punishment, social defence, preventive justice, and indeterminate sentencing are investigated in a comparative perspective. The manner in which US and European jurisprudence enforced these ideas brought about the emergence of two different penological identities: the US penal reform movement led to the adoption of the indeterminate sentence system, where ... More

The book provides an historical analysis of the impact of criminology on the rationale of punishment and the sentencing systems in Europe and the United States between the 1870s and the 1930s. The rise of the principles of individualization of punishment, social defence, preventive justice, and indeterminate sentencing are investigated in a comparative perspective. The manner in which US and European jurisprudence enforced these ideas brought about the emergence of two different penological identities: the US penal reform movement led to the adoption of the indeterminate sentence system, whereas the European criminological approach resulted in the formulation of the dual-track system with punishment and measures of security. This theoretical divide, discussed at many international congresses and formulated by means of studies in comparative criminal law, not only reflects two different ideas on the legitimacy and purpose of punishment, but also corresponds to two different constitutional views of criminal law. The book considers the relation between constitutional frameworks (rule of law and Rechtsstaat) and penological claims, explaining how some of the tenets of penal liberalism (e.g. principle of legality, separation of powers) were affected by penal modernism, even with the rise of authoritarian regimes. It examines the dilemmas aroused by criminology focusing on the judge’s role in the execution of sentences, the distribution of sentencing powers among judicial and administrative bodies, the balance between social security and individual guarantees, and the inconsistencies of preventive detention. Some conclusions are drawn about the critical contribution of comparative criminal law history to current penological problems.